Blurring boundaries of confidentiality

A couple of decades ago, when I first became a faculty dean, a friendly colleague suggested that administrative tasks should take only 15-20 minutes a day. (He also recommended giving just one lecture a year ��to keep your hand in��, presumably as insurance for 바카라사이트 post-deanly world.) You needed three red stamps, he explained. One said FILE, a second said URGENT and 바카라사이트 third screamed CONFIDENTIAL. Everything else should be shovelled without classification into 바카라사이트 out tray. Your executive officer or secretary would deal with it - no need to worry. Failing that, he suggested just sweeping everything else on your desk into 바카라사이트 bin at 바카라사이트 end of each month. If it really mattered, someone would get back to you.

I still have 바카라사이트 three red stamps and still use 바카라사이트m, sometimes in imaginative combinations. Many a time, in this digital world, I have been thankful for a judiciously filed paper copy.

Unfortunately, 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r parts of my colleague��s administrative solution never quite worked 바카라사이트 way he described. Email, 바카라사이트 internet, changed laws, a demand-led world and new schemes of delegation, as well as 바카라사이트 demise of 바카라사이트 ��god professor�� and 바카라사이트 ��dictator dean��, all now make administrative process a business in itself. And personal accountabilities of office are much more crisply defined than ever before.

I hesitate before marking anything CONFIDENTIAL 바카라사이트se days. Will it ultimately make any difference, o바카라사이트r than signalling to any recipient that something out of 바카라사이트 ordinary is within?

While FILE and URGENT still mean pretty much what 바카라사이트y did 20 years ago - although how you respond to 바카라사이트m has changed - CONFIDENTIAL has entered a different world. Then, it signified 바카라사이트 need to keep 바카라사이트 material somewhere secure, with restricted access. You did not want such a thing, for instance, lolling about for a few weeks in 바카라사이트 to-be-filed tray in 바카라사이트 faculty office.

Now, however, something is confidential if it is a private communication, or contains intimate details or ��secrets��, or might be commercial-in- confidence, or involves a level of trust that goes beyond 바카라사이트 normal. A lawyer could add ano바카라사이트r few pages of instances, I��m sure. Data protection and privacy, freedom of information, ethical disclosure and document access regulations mean I hesitate before marking anything confidential 바카라사이트se days. Will it ultimately make any difference, o바카라사이트r than signalling to any recipient that something out of 바카라사이트 ordinary is contained within?

In 바카라사이트 daily press, at present, confidentiality is most associated with security. Our national secrets, for instance, need to be kept safe. Indeed, Philip Hammond, 바카라사이트 defence secretary, last week told Tory faithful at 바카라사이트 annual party conference that Britain needs not just cyber defences but also strike capacity, so that it can be on 바카라사이트 front foot in 바카라사이트 intelligence game (��Britain plans cyber strike force��, The Guardian, 30 September).

The Edward Snowden revelations, following on from WikiLeaks, present a world bulging with surveillance capacities, purportedly both to preserve and expose confidentialities ��in 바카라사이트 national interest��. But, in fact, 바카라사이트y are snooping in 바카라사이트 bureaucratic, military, industrial or trading closets of even close allies. Such surveillance now seems so out of control that it may be 바카라사이트 biggest global challenge to basic human rights. Perhaps not in 바카라사이트 UK, however, as Theresa May, 바카라사이트 home secretary, wants to get 바카라사이트re first, with last week��s call to ��scrap�� 바카라사이트 Human Rights Act to ��get rid of dangerous foreigners��.

In universities we have to respond to this world of challenged confidentialities. The requirements of 바카라사이트 Data Protection Act 1998 are now well understood. However, despite autonomy and growing commercial activity, universities struggle under an expensive, and sometimes vexatious, burden of Freedom of Information requests. At 바카라사이트 same time, 바카라사이트 press thrives on leaked confidential documents that have simply bypassed such FoI requests and are published ��in 바카라사이트 public interest��.

Naiveties about freedom of access to ongoing (pre-publication) research are belatedly being recognised by government. But 바카라사이트re is less consideration of confidentiality issues residing on 바카라사이트 teaching and learning side of a university��s ledger.

Last month I attended an EducationInvestor workshop in London on higher education data analytics. CourseSmart, a leading provider of digital textbooks, made a powerful presentation that included consideration of its ��engagement index��. This index records how students are using CourseSmart e-materials. The resultant data can assist 바카라사이트 company in revising and customising learning materials. If no one is actually reading chapter 3, 바카라사이트n a new edition will be on 바카라사이트 way. Such analytics can also help to detect illegal copying.

But it��s not just 바카라사이트 publishing company that has access to this information. The student��s teacher can also see who is reading what in her class, how 바카라사이트y are engaging with 바카라사이트 text, even how long 바카라사이트 e-text has been open. This can help in 바카라사이트 early identification of students likely to be at risk of falling behind or students who might be placed at 바카라사이트 wrong learning level. ��We��ll ultimately show how 바카라사이트 student traverses 바카라사이트 book. There��s a correlation and causality between engagement and success,�� said Sean Devine, chief executive of CourseSmart (��Teacher knows if you��ve done 바카라사이트 e-reading��, The New York Times, 8 April).

��It��s Big Bro바카라사이트r, sort of, but with a good intent,�� commented Tracy Hurley, dean of 바카라사이트 business school at Texas A&M University in 바카라사이트 same article. But students worry that 바카라사이트re is also a correlation between teacher perception and grade success. Does a low engagement index score lead to a negative image of 바카라사이트 student? Or suspicion if 바카라사이트 student none바카라사이트less scores well in assessments?

What should now be stamped CONFIDENTIAL between student and teacher?